Aims: In light of the rise in research on technological addictions and smartphone addiction in particular, the aim of this paper was to review the relevant literature on the topic of smartphone addiction and determine whether this disorder exists or if it does not adequately satisfy the criteria for addiction. Methods: We reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies on smartphone addiction and analyzed their methods and conclusions to make a determination on the suitability of the diagnosis “addiction” to excessive and problematic smartphone use. Results: Although the majority of research in the field declares that smartphones are addictive or takes the existence of smartphone addiction as granted, we did not find sufficient support from the addiction perspective to confirm the existence of smartphone addiction at this time. The behaviors observed in the research could be better labeled as problematic or maladaptive smartphone use and their consequences do not meet the severity levels of those caused by addiction. Discussion and conclusions: Addiction is a disorder with severe effects on physical and psychological health. A behavior may have a similar presentation as addiction in terms of excessive use, impulse control problems, and negative consequences, but that does not mean that it should be considered an addiction. We propose moving away from the addiction framework when studying technological behaviors and using other terms such as “problematic use” to describe them. We recommend that problematic technology use is to be studied in its sociocultural context with an increased focus on its compensatory functions, motivations, and gratifications.

Background and aims: Following the recognition of ‘internet gaming disorder’ (IGD) as a condition requiring further study by the DSM‐5, ‘gaming disorder’ (GD) was officially included as a diagnostic entity by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD‐11). However, the proposed diagnostic criteria for gaming disorder remain the subject of debate, and there has been no systematic attempt to integrate the views of different groups of experts. To achieve a more systematic agreement on this new disorder, this study employed the Delphi expert consensus method to obtain expert agreement on the diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value of the DSM‐5 criteria and ICD‐11 clinical guidelines for GD.Methods: A total of 29 international experts with clinical and/or research experience in GD completed three iterative rounds of a Delphi survey. Experts rated proposed criteria in progressive rounds until a pre‐determined level of agreement was achieved.Results: For DSM‐5 IGD criteria, there was an agreement both that a subset had high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value and that some (e.g. tolerance, deception) had low diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value. Crucially, some DSM‐5 criteria (e.g. escapism/mood regulation, tolerance) were regarded as incapable of distinguishing between problematic and non‐problematic gaming. In contrast, ICD‐11 diagnostic guidelines for GD (except for the criterion relating to diminished non‐gaming interests) were judged as presenting high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value.Conclusions: This Delphi survey provides a foundation for identifying the most diagnostically valid and clinically useful criteria for GD. There was expert agreement that some DSM‐5 criteria were not clinically relevant and may pathologize non‐problematic patterns of gaming, whereas ICD‐11 diagnostic guidelines are likely to diagnose GD adequately and avoid pathologizing.

It has been more than a decade since a concern about the addictive use of the Internet and mobile phones was first expressed, and its possible inclusion into the lists of mental disorders has recently become a popular topic of scientific discussion. Thus, it seems to be a fitting moment to investigate the prevalence of this issue over time. The aim of the present study was to analyze the prevalence of the perception of problematic Internet and smartphone use in young people over the period 2006–2017. To this end, a questionnaire on Internet use habits and two questionnaires on the negative consequences of Internet and smartphone use were administered to a sample of 792 university students. The scores were then compared with the results of former studies that had used these questionnaires. The perception of problematic Internet and mobile phone use has increased over the last decade, social networks are considered responsible for this increase, and females are perceived to be more affected than males. The current study shows how strong smartphone and Internet addiction and social media overlap. Participants from 2017 report higher negative consequences of both Internet and mobile phone use than those from 2006, but long-term observations show a decrease in problematic use after a sharp increase in 2013. We conclude that the diagnosis of technological addictions is influenced by both time and social and culture changes.

The evolution of the Internet and its applications has led to a notable increase in concern about social networking sites (SNSs). SNSs have had global mass appeal and their often frequent use – usually by young people – has triggered worries, discussions and studies on the topic of technological and social networking addictions. In addressing this issue, we have to ask to what extent technological and social networking addictions are of the same nature as substance addictions, and whether the consequences they lead to, if any, are severe enough to merit clinical attention. We can summarize our position on the topic by saying that SNSs are primarily used to increase social capital and that there is not currently enough empirical evidence on SNSs’ addiction potential to claim that SNS addition exists. Although SNSs can provoke certain negative consequences in a subset of their users or provide a platform for the expression of preexisting conditions, this is not sufficient support for their standalone addictive power. It is necessary to distinguish between true addictive disorders, the kind that fall under the category of substance addictions, and the negative side-effects of engaging with certain appealing activities like SNSs so that we do not undermine the severity of psychiatric disorders and the experience of the individuals suffering from them. We propose that psychoeducation, viewing SNS use in context to understand their gratifications and compensatory functions and revisiting the terminology on the subject are sufficient to address the problems that emerge from SNS usage.